Thursday, November 22, 2012

You'll thank me later

A typical sentiment from a
Jihad Watch reader:

"The United States of America
has a long legal tradition where it acknowledges that the government has no
business making choices regarding what is and is not a valid interpretation of
any religious tradition. The only exception is when a religious interpretation
has a major impact on society, as in the example of Mormon
polygamy."

However, this commenter (again,
typically) did not draw the logical conclusion -- to exempt Islam from the
protections our Constitution affords religions.

Is not, one would ask, Islam precisely
an exception to this protection our Constitution affords religions?

Anyone who has been reading Jihad
Watch for a while (and as prodigiously alarming as is the mountain of data
warehoused there, there are more mountains of data to add to it, yielding
whole mountain ranges of damning data about the problem and danger of
Islam, amid mountains more of dots screaming for connection by anyone with half
a brain) can see that Islam is the Exception Par Excellence in this
regard. What more does a Religion have to be to warrant our recognition that it
lies outside the protections afforded by our Constitution?

The tack which those in the
Counter-Jihad tend to take at this juncture in the thought process is to leap
to the apodictic claim that "Islam is not a religion!" Ergo,
the logic goes, we don't have to worry about the Constitution protecting it.

While my thoughts about this
subject have more recently undergone evolution coming around to this point of
view, I see this more as a philosophical/anthropological issue, not necessarily
a political/pragmatic one. The fact is that the West has for centuries,
and continues to this day, to regard Islam as a "religion". We
in the CJ (the Counter-Jihad -- soon to be renamed the AIM, the Anti-Islam
Movement) have enough on our plate trying to wake up our somnambulist fellow
Westerners to the dangers of Islam without adding the extra burden of trying to
convince the vast majority of them of a remarkably novel idea that goes against the
grain of tradition.

For the purposes of what we can do to protect
ourselves from Islam, we don't need to de-religionize Islam in order to make it
vulnerable to the legal exemption from our laws protecting religious liberties; nor do we need to redefine
Islam. All we need do is scrape off the layers of whitewash that have accrued
by decades of PC MC (with several fresh coats of latex eggshell-white applied
post-911) in order to expose the fact that normative mainstream Islam,
regardless of whether or not it's also a "religion", lies outside the
protections our Western laws afford to religions.

Let's see, Islam mandates:

sedition

hatred

supremacism

expansionism

a dismantling of all Western
liberties and freedoms

violence in order to pursue the
above list;

and, as part and parcel of all of
the above:

the goal of destroying
the Constitution (and all non-Islamic laws on earth) to replace it with Islamic Sharia -- a goal not only
believed ideologically, but also pursued seditiously, with violence planned,
and violence already waged against us.

Indeed, specifically, Islam is the
embodiment of a violent/stealth project to violate Article 6 of the
Constitution (which of course is the cornerstone of the entire document):

This Constitution, and the Laws
of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

This provision, so to speak,
"abrogates" anything else in the Constitution by which some apologist
weasel (or PC MC-compomised soul with starry eyes) would seek, or claim, to
find protection for Islam in the Constitution.

If we follow Article VI (and we
must, according to Article VI itself), the Constitution itself outlaws Islam
already. The American brain and its reflexes are just currently lagging
behind what its heart and mind long ago solemnly swore to uphold.

In this regard, not my memory so much as my intelligence was jogged, when I listened to the very good question of an audience member (an ordinary citizen named Ron Thompson, a D.C. lawyer) during the Q-&-A
segment of a recent colloquium involving Diana West, Stephen
Coughlin, Andrew Bostom and Frank Gaffney. Ron Thompson's question begins toward the end, at about the 1:21 time mark of the video.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Thompson's question is rhetorical: i.e.,
it already contains the answer. It will just take, apparently (and tragically), several
years -- if not bloody decades, literally and figuratively -- before the
rest of the West catches up to think it, and then apply it.

And the extent to which my last
paragraph holds may be measured by how many even within the Counter Jihad
wring their hands, shake their heads, and with benighted sincerity and anxiety,
mouth the inanity like parrots that "well, our hands are tied by the
Constitution...what can we do...!?"